The question having been taken, the Conven-
tion, by ayes 27, noes 32, refuged to strike
out.
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. BLAKISTONE to strike out the thirty-fourth
article.
Mr. STEPHENSON called the yeas and nays.
Mr. LEE offered the followed amendment.
"Insert after the word ' worship,' in the twelfth
line, the words 'or parsonage.' "
The amendment was agreed to.
The question again recurred on the motion of
Mr. BLAKISTONE.
Mr. PARKE moved to amend said article by in-
serting after the word "acres," in the twelfth
line, these words, "or the value of ten thousand
dollars."
Mr. BLAKISTONE said, by the advice of gentle-
men around him, he would withdraw his amend-
ment.
So the motion to strike out the thirty-fourth
article was rejected.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. PARKE.
Mr. DORSEY expressed his belief, that if this
amendment should be adopted, it would be an
abandonment of the principle of prohibiting gifts
or devises of lands to churches, ministers of the
gospel, &c., and would lead to the engrossing of
a large portion of the real property of the State by
the clergy. We have made a more liberal allowance
of such gifts and devises, than was tolerated in the
last bill of rights. If, as is proposed by the
amendment offered, a devise of lands, worth
ten thousand dollars, by one testator, to a priest
or other minister of the gospel, is tolerated, by a
succession of such devises, lands to an indefinite
amount in quantity and value, may be placed in
mortmain, in violation of the best interests of the
State, and against every principle of public
policy.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. PARKE, and it was rejected.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER now renewed the mo-
tion of Mr. BLAKISTONE, to strike out the thirty-
fourth article.
Mr. HARBINE said he hoped the motion of his
colleague, (Mr. John Newcomer,) to strike out
the entire section, would prevail. The section
denied the rights of persons to give, sell or devise,
and of religious corporations and clergymen as
such, to receive of such persons, lands, goods and
chattels. He held that every owner of property
had the right to make whatever disposition of it
he pleased, provided such disposition, did not in-
jure the community at large. He also held the
right of corporations and individuals to receive,
and purchase property subject to the same con-
dition. These principles of right were so plain
as to require no discussion. All institutions and
persons should, as near as circumstances will pos-
sibly permit, be placed upon the same broad
principles of right and equality. Any other doc-
trine at this era of progress, was behind and unworthy
of the age. But is it in any manner pro-
bable, that the exercise of these rights, prohibit-
ed by this section, would operate to the injury
of the people and institutions of this State? If
28

there was, he (Mr. H.) was prepared to vote for
the section. But he could .see no possible dang-
er. That age had long, long, since passed away.
True, the old Constitution had a similar provision,
but then it was farmed when times were.
very different from what they are now. Religi-
ous prejudices then weighed powerfully; bigotry
and superstition, the relic of ages gone by, still
had their influences, hence it was natural that
men of that day, should have great dread of the
property monopolies of religious persons and
corporations. Yet even in the old Bill of Bights.
it was provided that by leave of the Legislature
any amount of property might be given and sold,
purchased and received, and when has the Le-
gislature refused to grant such leave? Mr. H.
said this question had arisen at a time he had not
anticipated, and therefore he had not examined
it fully, but lie was prepared to say, that in very
many, if not in the Constitutions of all the other
States of this Union, no such provision as the
section under consideration could be found. He
would then ask that if not necessary in other
States, was it necessary in ours ? If the evils
which this provision was intended to prevent did
not exist in other States, whose organic law con-
tained no clause of this character, would such
evils exist among our people without it? Most
certainly not. Why then encumber our Bill of
Rights with such a provision? Why have such
restrictions—why make such distinctions without.
causes that fully justify ?
Mr, STEPHENSON asked the yeas and nays on
the motion of Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER, which were
ordered.
Mr. WEEMS expressed his intention to vote
against the amendment. He had no objection to
the Church holding as much property as might
be desired. But as there are so many sects all
ready in existence, and others might arise, they
might, in process of time, run all over the State,
and possess themselves of all the most valuable
land. And as he believed that all Church prop-
erty was exempted from taxation, the effect
might be to produce a great diminution of the
revenue which the State derives from taxes. For
this reason and not from any hostility to the
Church, he should vote against the amendment.
The question was then taken, on the motion
of Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER, to strike out the sec-
tion, and the result was as follows :
affirmative.—Messrs. Randall, Kent, John Den-
nis, Hicks, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, McHenry,
Ware, Jr., John Newcomer, Harbine and Show-
er—12.
Negative.—Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells, Sellman, Weems, Dalrymple, Brent of
Charles, Merrick, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Ridge-
ly, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Crisfield, Da-
shiell, Williams, McLane, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, George, Dirickson, McMaster, Fooks,
Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, Magraw, Nelson, Carter,
Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Presstman,
Fiery, Michael Newcomer, Davis, Weber,
Hollyday, Slicer, Parke, Ege and Cockey— 55.